M1 Carbine

[porthos]

a little bit off topic; but a interesting story anyway. had a friend long gone now. jumped out of a plane over normandy; carring a m-1 carbine. he and others that carried carbines; after days and/or weeks of battle,realized that the carbine didn't do enough damage (to kill) germans. he and others did all that they could to procure a garand and ammo.

[Larry Gibson]

Many years ago I went through all my 30 Carbine brass [US milsurp and commercial], sized it, then trimmed it to the same length and haven't needed to trim again. The cases have been shot many, many times in multiple different M1/M2 Carbines over the years w/o a single fail to fully chamber. I found they actually are shorter after firing and then come back to normal length after sizing. None have stretched to the point of needing trimmed again.

I used an M2 carbine [always on semi] in the late SE Asian war games. I never found it lacking in killing the enemy. However, perhaps Hienz was a lot tougher than Nathanial.......

[Adam Helmer]

a little bit off topic; but a interesting story anyway. had a friend long gone now. jumped out of a plane over normandy; carring a m-1 carbine. he and others that carried carbines; after days and/or weeks of battle,realized that the carbine didn't do enough damage (to kill) germans. he and others did all that they could to procure a garand and ammo.

porthos,

I had 6 uncles in WWII; 3 were in the Army and 3 were Marines and all said they liked carrying the lighter Carbine, but it was less effective than the Garand unless many rounds were put into an enemy. Uncle Carl, now deceased, was also in Korea and he said the Carbine was a disappointment when he entered Seoul. He got a Garand at his first opportunity because he wanted to come home someday. He did to a farm in PA.

I have a few Carbines, all DCM guns, and they are fun to shoot. I reload a cast boolit that is ball substitute here on the farm.

Be well.

Adam

[elmacgyver0]

I don't think the carbine was ever intended to be a front-line rifle to replace the Garand.
I always likened it to a pistol caliber carbine. I think it's intended function was for support troops to have an easier to master arm than the .45 pistol in case they got caught up in the action.
But then, what the hell do I know, I wasn't there.

[dr_rick]

I also check everyone after resizing and trim those that need to be trimmed.

[Patrick L]

I don't think the carbine was ever intended to be a front-line rifle to replace the Garand.
I always likened it to a pistol caliber carbine. I think it's intended function was for support troops to have an easier to master arm than the .45 pistol in case they got caught up in the action.
But then, what the hell do I know, I wasn't there.

That's exactly true. Compare an M1 carbine to a 1911. At any distance past 20 yards or so an M1 carbine is INFINITELY easier to connect with. That was the whole point, it was easier than a pistol to hit with. NEVER intended to be compared to a Garand.

That said, I wouldn’t want to be hit with one (or anything for that matter.) Every time I'm shooting mine at the range and some historian starts spouting off about how weak they were, I repeat a standing offer I have; I'll give you $50 to pace off 50 yards, bend over, and I'll shoot you in the rear end with it. Heck, probably won't even break the skin, it's only a .30 carbine!

No takers yet.

[TNsailorman]

Audie Murphy carried an Winchester M1 Carbine and I do believe he knew a little bit about fighting the Germans. I read his book and I nowhere found a place where he criticized it. He seemed to like the ,45 Thompson for house duty but I liked it also. james

[porthos]

read above what the thread from Adam Hemler said. and what i said in my post. it is plain and simple that the 30 carbine round does not kill as quickly or at all; as does the garand round.... it is just a fact.

[TNsailorman]

I was raised in a neighborhood where there were quite a few WW II combat veterans who fought both in the Pacific and Europe. They all had actual combat experience. Not one ever criticized the Carbine. I had a couple of friends who served in Korea and the only thing approaching a negative comment on the Carbine was that at 200 yards or more it had a hard time penetrating the Chinese thick multi layered quilted winter unforms. My friend and shooting buddy of years ago who was in Vietnam told me the day he got into country that the first issued him was a flak vest and the second item was an M2 Carbine and 2 cans of ammo and was told to go into the bush and practice cause he was sure going to need it. He was a crewman flying on Jolly Greens. So please tell us when and where in combat you had a M1 Carbine fail to kill or put someone out of action. I don't need to re-read someone's opinion when I have actual combat experience talking to me. They were there and done that and they came home alive while toting a Carbine in some pretty close situations. james

[Larry Gibson]

I was raised in a neighborhood where there were quite a few WW II combat veterans who fought both in the Pacific and Europe. They all had actual combat experience. Not one ever criticized the Carbine. I had a couple of friends who served in Korea and the only thing approaching a negative comment on the Carbine was that at 200 yards or more it had a hard time penetrating the Chinese thick multi layered quilted winter unforms. My friend and shooting buddy of years ago who was in Vietnam told me the day he got into country that the first issued him was a flak vest and the second item was an M2 Carbine and 2 cans of ammo and was told to go into the bush and practice cause he was sure going to need it. He was a crewman flying on Jolly Greens. So please tell us when and where in combat you had a M1 Carbine fail to kill or put someone out of action. I don't need to re-read someone's opinion when I have actual combat experience talking to me. They were there and done that and they came home alive while toting a Carbine in some pretty close situations. james

Post #22......

[porthos]

with some of the posts praising the carbine round; i wonder why the U.S. is changing from the 223 round to the 6.8 round???????

[Adam Helmer]

with some of the posts praising the carbine round; i wonder why the U.S. is changing from the 223 round to the 6.8 round???????

porthos,

The military has its own agenda. I was issued an M1 Carbine in 1962 and later in 1965 a Mattel 16. Any student of high school physics knows a 110 grain projectile at 1900 FPS is Less Effective than a 150 grain projectile going 2550 FPS. I rest this case.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Brits in 1913 were considering replacing the circa 1888 .303 British round with a smaller caliber rifle, the P-13. World events precluded the caliber change and the Brits kept using the .303 until about 1958, with no ill effects recorded in history.

Why a new rifle caliber is "needed" begs logic, in my opinion.

Be well.

Adam

[Larry Gibson]

"The military has its own agenda. I was issued an M1 Carbine in 1962 and later in 1965 a Mattel 16. Any student of high school physics knows a 110 grain projectile at 1900 FPS is Less Effective than a 150 grain projectile going 2550 FPS. I rest this case."

I don't believe anyone said the 30 carbine round had as much punch as the M2 ball cartridge. As to being "effective" my first hand experience in SE Asia demonstrated its effectiveness. I am constantly amazed that many pooh pooh the lack of effectiveness of the 30 Carbine cartridge in M1/M2 carbines yet go gah gah over the 9mm in handguns, subguns and carbines which push 115 - 124 gr bullets out at 1100 - 1500 fps +/-. I also imagine all the Allies and Russians killed on both fronts by 9mm out of countless MP40s or the Germans killed by the thousands with countless 7.62x25s out of PPSH 41s would disagree about any "less effectiveness". Yes, the 30 Carbine out of M1/M2 Carbines was a very effective combat weapon when used correctly.

[Bigslug]

I've got to track down some photos of 1950's Chinese troops. I wonder if the lack of penetration stories had anything to do with their chests being covered with ammo pouches full of SKS stripper clips or other gear.

Having dabbled, I find the carbines to be a pretty impressive pistol, and a rather disappointing rifle. In a gun that appeared to have everything going for it in terms of condition and fitting, I recently witnessed factory Federal American Eagle ammo to be significantly less accurate than the owner's progressive ladder test cast bullet workup. Definitely a threat at 100 yards, and dangerous by law of probability at 200, but it seems kind of like a 5-shot J-frame as your CCW - - better for getting out of a jam than something you'd choose to take into one.

Yes, it's got double the capacity, but I think the Garand is significantly quicker to reload.

[Larry Gibson]

Never saw any pictures of Korean or Chinese armed with SKSs during the Korean war. Mostly see them with M91 & M44 MNs and PPSH 41s. I also doubt the 30 Carbine bullets failed to penetrate the large bulky winter coats as I have thoroughly tested the penetration ability of the 30 Carbine cartridge. What I suspect is most of coats at least double the width of soldiers. That means there's 1/4 plus of simply coat on each side of the "target area" for the bullet to simply go through w/o hitting the soldier. Also, in combat, even at very close quarters, there is a lot more missing than hitting unless one is very well trained and maintains situational awareness. Most of our Soldiers and Marines, especially earlier in the Korean war, were not well trained in combat marksmanship and lacked the experience to maintain situational awareness.

Back in the day when I joined the Army there were still a lot of WWII and Korean War vets still in. I'm referring to Airborne Infantry vets. Heard a lot of praise for the M1/M2 Carbine. From those that didn't care for the M1 Carbine a lament was heard something like....."ahhhhh, the carbine ain't no good for nuttin, but take the Thompson.....one hit in the little finger and it'd take the whole arm off and knock 'em back 20 feet......."

[charlie b]

Had an NCO who was a marine tanker in VN. He kept an M1/M2 on the turret when he needed to hit a tgt closer than his MG would pivot. He used it quite a bit and was not in the least disappointed by it. His plt also had one tank that was fitted with a mini-gun for anti-ambush duty.

[Delkal]

Do a quick search on the M1 carbine and ballistic gel or penetration tests and its pretty clear that the bullets bouncing off the North Koreans is a myth. With a FMJ bullet you get 28+ inches of penetration and in most of the videos the bullet keeps going. There will be a huge difference in energy and stopping power vs a 30-06 but if the bullet hits it will likely go thru.

As many have pointed out the carbine was to replace a pistol and pistols don't have the stopping power like you see in the movies. It is rare that someone gets shot with one shot and instantly falls down dead. I think non front line troops would rather carry a 5 pound rifle that is 1/3 shorter than a full sized 10 pound Garand if they had other things to do. And while a 100 yard shot is easy with a carbine it is practically impossible with a .45 pistol under battlefield conditions. Most of the arguments against the carbine ignore the fact there were not enough Garands for every soldier to have one so the comparison is about the carbine vs a sidearm. I know which one I would want.

[muskeg13]

A close family friend with 30+ years in uniform, with a combat tour in Korea and two in Viet Nam as a small unit "advisor", absolutely loved the M2 Carbine. For modest distances, he thought it was the best personal weapon he ever used, and at times he carried the M1903(A4), M1 rifle, M3 and Thompson submachineguns, M14 and eventually the M16. He had great respect for and always was also armed with a M1911, needing to use it on occasion. He told me he thought the Army made a mistake introducing and adopting the M16 for Viet Nam when he believed the M2 Carbine was perfect for that situation, and that the M2 Carbine should have been put back into production.

[Larry Gibson]

A close family friend with 30+ years in uniform, with a combat tour in Korea and two in Viet Nam as a small unit "advisor", absolutely loved the M2 Carbine. For modest distances, he thought it was the best personal weapon he ever used, and at times he carried the M1903(A4), M1 rifle, M3 and Thompson submachineguns, M14 and eventually the M16. He had great respect for and always was also armed with a M1911, needing to use it on occasion. He told me he thought the Army made a mistake introducing and adopting the M16 for Viet Nam when he believed the M2 Carbine was perfect for that situation, and that the M2 Carbine should have been put back into production.

I concur highly with your friend as my experience with all of those weapons mirrors his.

[Larry Gibson]

Do a quick search on the M1 carbine and ballistic gel or penetration tests and its pretty clear that the bullets bouncing off the North Koreans is a myth. With a FMJ bullet you get 28+ inches of penetration and in most of the videos the bullet keeps going. There will be a huge difference in energy and stopping power vs a 30-06 but if the bullet hits it will likely go thru.........

Let's not confuse anyone with facts.......